George trial June 8: jury finds Boston lawyer guilty

Most lawyers believe that a quick verdict is usually favorable for a criminal defendant. Such was not the case on June 8 for Boston criminal defense attorney Robert A. George in U.S. District Court. Just four hours after a jury began deliberating, it returned to Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton’s courtroom with across-the-board guilty verdicts.

Jurors found George guilty of five counts of money laundering, conspiracy, as well as illegally structuring bank deposits. He returns to court for sentencing on Sept. 19. The outcome, in all likelihood, means that George, 57, will serve significant time in prison and be disbarred.

There is a reason people call the federal court the House of Pain. Nearly 90 percent of the criminal defendants who roll the dice at trial end up being convicted. Check out this story, “Prospects dim for defendants in federal court,” that I wrote on the subject in March 2011.

The next step in the process is for the probation department to conduct a pre-sentence report on George that will eventually be submitted to the judge. At that point, both the prosecution and defense will have an opportunity to submit their own sentencing memorandum.

George is a tremendously popular lawyer, who has been on the legal scene for more than 30 years. One would imagine that the judge will receive many letters from his colleagues asking for a lenient sentence. Gorton, however, has a reputation for being extremely tough on defendants when it comes to arriving at an appropriate prison term.

What is unclear is exactly how the judge will feel about the government’s case. The prosecution relied, in large part, on the testimony of Ronald Dardinski, a paid government informant who has earned nearly $75,000 from the government over the years. Dardinski was caught in some huge lies on the stand, particularly when it came to the “chance encounter” he told jurors he had with George at the South Shore Mall in Braintree that started the entire case. On top of that, Dardinski, who had already been paid $28,000 in the matter, testified that he stood to gain more from a conviction in that the feds planned to give him a percentage of any assets they might seize from George. Such incentive based testimony is not permitted in state court and is not something you see everyday on the federal side either.

For more analysis of the paid witness issue, check out David Boeri’s story on the case on WBUR. He quotes Boston lawyer Harvey Silverglate as saying that added problems are created when the government makes a witness’s financial interest contingent, not just on testifying, but testifying well enough to win a conviction. “Then courts begin to hold their noses,” Silverglate tells Boeri. “And there has been some speculation, at least within the First Circuit, that such testimony should be inadmissible.”

It seems inevitable at this point that the appellate court, in U.S. v. George, will get another chance to tackle the issue.

4 comments

I don’t understand how the governments main witnesses; the informant and DEA agent both committed Perjury, the informant over and over again yet their so called testimony is allowed and the G-men get another conviction ? Of course they have a high conviction rate when they are allowed to lie, create false evidence and break the law in the pursuit of justice !!!

it appears the jury does not have much in the way of brains. they made up their minds before the trial even began. if nothing else the case was loaded with reasonable doubt. you have a known criminal , paid by the feds with a financial gain to be made and you depend on him for your ruling. why would such a big defense lawyer be dumb enough to ruin his life and career for $20,000 dollars?? $200,000.00 maybe but $20. and if you really think he has financial problems i have a bridge for sale too.

As AUSA Kaplan stated, the tape does not lie. Mr. Dardinski can have a criminal record a mile long, but if the defendant is recorded on VHS/audio tapes, then that coorborates what Dardinksi says. His record does NOT matter.

Given the devastating cross of Dardinski, wasn’t anyone surprised by the outcome or the speed with which the jury dispatched the defendant? I don’t see any reference to that in the reporting.

The verdict suggests that the defendant’s recorded conversations were so compelling, it didn’t matter what the informant had to say or that he was a demonstrated liar. If so, one wonders what plea deal was offered, and why it was rejected.